User login
COVID-19 in 2020: Deaths and disparities
COVID-19 was the third-leading cause of death in the United States in 2020, but that mortality burden did not fall evenly along racial/ethnic lines, according to a provisional report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Only heart disease and cancer caused more deaths than SARS-CoV-2, which took the lives of almost 378,000 Americans last year, Farida B. Ahmad, MPH, and associates at the National Center for Health Statistics noted March 31 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
That represents 11.2% of the almost 3.36 million total deaths recorded in 2020. The racial/ethnics demographics, however, show that 22.4% of all deaths among Hispanic Americans were COVID-19–related, as were 18.6% of deaths in American Indians/Alaska Natives. Deaths among Asian persons, at 14.7%, and African Americans, at 13.5%, were closer but still above the national figure, while Whites (9.3%) were the only major subgroup below it, based on data from the National Vital Statistics System.
Age-adjusted death rates tell a somewhat different story: American Indian/Alaska native persons were highest with a rate of 187.8 COVID-19–associated deaths per 100,000 standard population, with Hispanic persons second at 164.3 per 100,000. Blacks were next at 151.1 deaths per 100,000, but Whites had a higher rate (72.5) than did Asian Americans (66.7), the CDC investigators reported.
“During January-December 2020, the estimated 2020 age-adjusted death rate increased for the first time since 2017, with an increase of 15.9% compared with 2019, from 715.2 to 828.7 deaths per 100,000 population,” they wrote, noting that “certain categories of race (i.e., AI/AN and Asian) and Hispanic ethnicity reported on death certificates might have been misclassified, possibly resulting in underestimates of death rates for some groups.”
COVID-19 was the third-leading cause of death in the United States in 2020, but that mortality burden did not fall evenly along racial/ethnic lines, according to a provisional report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Only heart disease and cancer caused more deaths than SARS-CoV-2, which took the lives of almost 378,000 Americans last year, Farida B. Ahmad, MPH, and associates at the National Center for Health Statistics noted March 31 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
That represents 11.2% of the almost 3.36 million total deaths recorded in 2020. The racial/ethnics demographics, however, show that 22.4% of all deaths among Hispanic Americans were COVID-19–related, as were 18.6% of deaths in American Indians/Alaska Natives. Deaths among Asian persons, at 14.7%, and African Americans, at 13.5%, were closer but still above the national figure, while Whites (9.3%) were the only major subgroup below it, based on data from the National Vital Statistics System.
Age-adjusted death rates tell a somewhat different story: American Indian/Alaska native persons were highest with a rate of 187.8 COVID-19–associated deaths per 100,000 standard population, with Hispanic persons second at 164.3 per 100,000. Blacks were next at 151.1 deaths per 100,000, but Whites had a higher rate (72.5) than did Asian Americans (66.7), the CDC investigators reported.
“During January-December 2020, the estimated 2020 age-adjusted death rate increased for the first time since 2017, with an increase of 15.9% compared with 2019, from 715.2 to 828.7 deaths per 100,000 population,” they wrote, noting that “certain categories of race (i.e., AI/AN and Asian) and Hispanic ethnicity reported on death certificates might have been misclassified, possibly resulting in underestimates of death rates for some groups.”
COVID-19 was the third-leading cause of death in the United States in 2020, but that mortality burden did not fall evenly along racial/ethnic lines, according to a provisional report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Only heart disease and cancer caused more deaths than SARS-CoV-2, which took the lives of almost 378,000 Americans last year, Farida B. Ahmad, MPH, and associates at the National Center for Health Statistics noted March 31 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
That represents 11.2% of the almost 3.36 million total deaths recorded in 2020. The racial/ethnics demographics, however, show that 22.4% of all deaths among Hispanic Americans were COVID-19–related, as were 18.6% of deaths in American Indians/Alaska Natives. Deaths among Asian persons, at 14.7%, and African Americans, at 13.5%, were closer but still above the national figure, while Whites (9.3%) were the only major subgroup below it, based on data from the National Vital Statistics System.
Age-adjusted death rates tell a somewhat different story: American Indian/Alaska native persons were highest with a rate of 187.8 COVID-19–associated deaths per 100,000 standard population, with Hispanic persons second at 164.3 per 100,000. Blacks were next at 151.1 deaths per 100,000, but Whites had a higher rate (72.5) than did Asian Americans (66.7), the CDC investigators reported.
“During January-December 2020, the estimated 2020 age-adjusted death rate increased for the first time since 2017, with an increase of 15.9% compared with 2019, from 715.2 to 828.7 deaths per 100,000 population,” they wrote, noting that “certain categories of race (i.e., AI/AN and Asian) and Hispanic ethnicity reported on death certificates might have been misclassified, possibly resulting in underestimates of death rates for some groups.”
FROM MMWR
CDC adds new medical conditions to COVID-19 high-risk list
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has added several new medical conditions to its list of those that predispose adults to more severe COVID-19 illness.
Conditions that had previously been categorized as “might be” placing individuals at increased risk – but now are listed as high risk – include type 1 diabetes (in addition to type 2), moderate-to-severe asthma, liver disease, dementia or other neurologic conditions, stroke/cerebrovascular disease, HIV infection, cystic fibrosis, and overweight (in addition to obesity).
Substance use disorders, which hadn’t been previously listed, are now also considered high risk.
The new list groups together certain categories, such as chronic lung diseases (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, cystic fibrosis, etc) and heart conditions (heart failure, coronary artery disease, hypertension, etc).
Both diabetes types are now grouped under “diabetes.”
The added medical conditions were posted on the CDC website’s COVID-19 page on March 29.
Type 1 diabetes and other conditions now priority for vaccination
The CDC refers to the medical conditions list as phase 1c in regard to COVID-19 vaccine prioritization, which means that anyone with any of these conditions can now be prioritized for vaccination, following those in groups 1a (frontline essential workers and those in long-term care facilities) and 1b (people aged 65-74 years; other essential workers; and people aged 16-64 years with underlying conditions that increase the risk of serious, life-threatening complications from COVID-19).
But in many cases, multiple states have already either fully opened up vaccine eligibility to all adults or have created their own lists of underlying high-risk medical conditions, CDC spokeswoman Kristen Nordlund told this news organization.
No conditions have been removed from the list.
In January, the American Diabetes Association and 18 other organizations sent a letter to the CDC requesting that type 1 diabetes be prioritized along with type 2, based on data from studies showing people with both types to be at high risk for severe COVID-19 illness.
Now, ADA says, “this updated guidance will help to address the fact that in many states, millions of people with type 1 diabetes have not been prioritized equally, slowing their access to critical vaccines.”
While awaiting this latest CDC move, ADA had been urging state governors to prioritize type 1 and type 2 diabetes equally. As of now, 38 states and the District of Columbia had either done so or announced that they would.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has added several new medical conditions to its list of those that predispose adults to more severe COVID-19 illness.
Conditions that had previously been categorized as “might be” placing individuals at increased risk – but now are listed as high risk – include type 1 diabetes (in addition to type 2), moderate-to-severe asthma, liver disease, dementia or other neurologic conditions, stroke/cerebrovascular disease, HIV infection, cystic fibrosis, and overweight (in addition to obesity).
Substance use disorders, which hadn’t been previously listed, are now also considered high risk.
The new list groups together certain categories, such as chronic lung diseases (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, cystic fibrosis, etc) and heart conditions (heart failure, coronary artery disease, hypertension, etc).
Both diabetes types are now grouped under “diabetes.”
The added medical conditions were posted on the CDC website’s COVID-19 page on March 29.
Type 1 diabetes and other conditions now priority for vaccination
The CDC refers to the medical conditions list as phase 1c in regard to COVID-19 vaccine prioritization, which means that anyone with any of these conditions can now be prioritized for vaccination, following those in groups 1a (frontline essential workers and those in long-term care facilities) and 1b (people aged 65-74 years; other essential workers; and people aged 16-64 years with underlying conditions that increase the risk of serious, life-threatening complications from COVID-19).
But in many cases, multiple states have already either fully opened up vaccine eligibility to all adults or have created their own lists of underlying high-risk medical conditions, CDC spokeswoman Kristen Nordlund told this news organization.
No conditions have been removed from the list.
In January, the American Diabetes Association and 18 other organizations sent a letter to the CDC requesting that type 1 diabetes be prioritized along with type 2, based on data from studies showing people with both types to be at high risk for severe COVID-19 illness.
Now, ADA says, “this updated guidance will help to address the fact that in many states, millions of people with type 1 diabetes have not been prioritized equally, slowing their access to critical vaccines.”
While awaiting this latest CDC move, ADA had been urging state governors to prioritize type 1 and type 2 diabetes equally. As of now, 38 states and the District of Columbia had either done so or announced that they would.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has added several new medical conditions to its list of those that predispose adults to more severe COVID-19 illness.
Conditions that had previously been categorized as “might be” placing individuals at increased risk – but now are listed as high risk – include type 1 diabetes (in addition to type 2), moderate-to-severe asthma, liver disease, dementia or other neurologic conditions, stroke/cerebrovascular disease, HIV infection, cystic fibrosis, and overweight (in addition to obesity).
Substance use disorders, which hadn’t been previously listed, are now also considered high risk.
The new list groups together certain categories, such as chronic lung diseases (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, cystic fibrosis, etc) and heart conditions (heart failure, coronary artery disease, hypertension, etc).
Both diabetes types are now grouped under “diabetes.”
The added medical conditions were posted on the CDC website’s COVID-19 page on March 29.
Type 1 diabetes and other conditions now priority for vaccination
The CDC refers to the medical conditions list as phase 1c in regard to COVID-19 vaccine prioritization, which means that anyone with any of these conditions can now be prioritized for vaccination, following those in groups 1a (frontline essential workers and those in long-term care facilities) and 1b (people aged 65-74 years; other essential workers; and people aged 16-64 years with underlying conditions that increase the risk of serious, life-threatening complications from COVID-19).
But in many cases, multiple states have already either fully opened up vaccine eligibility to all adults or have created their own lists of underlying high-risk medical conditions, CDC spokeswoman Kristen Nordlund told this news organization.
No conditions have been removed from the list.
In January, the American Diabetes Association and 18 other organizations sent a letter to the CDC requesting that type 1 diabetes be prioritized along with type 2, based on data from studies showing people with both types to be at high risk for severe COVID-19 illness.
Now, ADA says, “this updated guidance will help to address the fact that in many states, millions of people with type 1 diabetes have not been prioritized equally, slowing their access to critical vaccines.”
While awaiting this latest CDC move, ADA had been urging state governors to prioritize type 1 and type 2 diabetes equally. As of now, 38 states and the District of Columbia had either done so or announced that they would.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Vitiligo patients share their experiences, frustrations with treatment options with FDA
Patients with vitiligo have faced significant impacts psychosocially and in many cases, profound losses of identity – and they’ve had only minimal success with treatment, according to participants who spoke at and provided input at a public meeting on patient-focused drug development for the disease.
The virtual meeting, held in March, was part of the Food and Drug Administration’s Patient-Focused Drug Development (PFDD) initiative, which began in 2012 and aims to provide a systematic way for patients’ experiences, needs and priorities to be “captured and meaningfully incorporated” into drug development and evaluation.
Seemal Desai, MD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Texas, Dallas, who attended the meeting as an observer, said in a later interview that while “all skin diseases have a psychosocial component … vitiligo is a really unique one, because it really relates to the patient’s own identity.
“What I heard loud and clear from the FDA [leaders who ran and attended the meeting] is recognition that patients are suffering. They needed to hear about the emotional devastation of the disease and how it is a medical condition,” Dr. Desai said.
The meeting was the “first-ever vitiligo meeting at the FDA” and was a “historic moment for the vitiligo community,” he added.
The pigmentation disorder affects 1% of the world’s population. Nearly 50% have an onset before age 20, and onset before age 12 is common, Brenda Carr, MD, medical officer with the FDA’s Division of Dermatology and Dentistry in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in an introductory overview.
The only FDA-approved treatment for vitiligo is monobenzone cream, but this is indicated for final depigmentation in extensive vitiligo and is no longer marketed. Treatment options include corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, vitamin D analogues, phototherapy, surgical treatments (tissue grafts and cellular grafts), and camouflage (make-up, tattoos, self-tanning products), Dr. Carr said.
Patients participated in one of two panels – one about the health effects and daily impacts of vitiligo and the other about treatments – or submitted input electronically. All patients were invited to answer poll questions and open-ended queries, including questions about how they would assess new treatments.
Several panel members who are Black shared series of photos that showed the evolution of defined white patches into widespread, generalized depigmentation. One man with skin of color who lives in the Netherlands said he has had vitiligo since the age of 12, but that when he became older, over a 4-year period, he was “transformed from a man of Indonesian roots to a totally white man.”
Experiencing only minimal benefit from treatment and the short-term effectiveness of treatments were the top two answers to a poll question asking participants about the most burdensome impacts of the medical products and interventions they have used. Difficulty in accessing treatment, concern about serious risks of treatment, and uncertainty about long-term effects of treatment were other frequently chosen answers.
Patients described the onerous nature of phototherapy (treatments repeated several times a week over long periods) and other treatments, and several described feeling that some physicians did not take the condition seriously or fully know of treatment options.
In her closing remarks, Kendall Marcus, MD, director of the Division of Dermatology and Dentistry at the FDA, acknowledged the input. “Some of you have had difficulty having your disease taken seriously by physicians who view it as a cosmetic condition and are reluctant to treat because they believe your expectations will not be met, that it will be an exercise in frustration,” she said.
Regarding the impacts of treatments that have been utilized, “some of the treatments make it impossible to do other activities such as work or care for yourself in other ways,” Dr. Marcus said. “Certainly that’s not the kind of treatment … that anybody wants to have.”
Dr. Desai, who utilizes an array of oral and topical treatments and phototherapies in his practice, said he was surprised and disheartened to hear the level of concern about side effects of treatment. Most of those who expressed concerns alluded to phototherapy. “I think light treatments are very safe and effective,” he said in the interview. “I might equate [such concerns] to the older PUVA [psoralen plus UVA ultraviolet light] therapy, but not so much the newer therapies.”
The FDA participants probed patients for their perspective on a meaningful level of repigmentation and an acceptable level of risk for any new hypothetical treatment. Specifically, they asked whether patients would use a new topical cream approved for vitiligo if the cream needed to be applied once a day, would have up to 50% efficacy in some people, and would have common side effects of redness and irritation at the application site, mild acne, and burning, as well as several rarer but more serious side effects.
Only 36% answered yes; 24% said no, and 40% answered maybe. Some patients said during the meeting that they had accepted their condition and were not pursuing any treatment. Others said they were very interested in treatment but only if the level of repigmentation were significantly higher than 50%. Some described their fear that positive treatment effects would be short term only.
Meri Izrail Kohen, who lives in France and has lost half of her skin’s pigmentation, said that treatment efficacy is “not only about how much recovery of pigment it allows, but how long the recovery will last.” Some treatments will work for some patients, she said, “but even in these cases when we stop the treatment, it will come back somehow.”
Lee Thomas, a TV anchor in Detroit, and a reporter and author of the book “Turning White,” described how he tried “every treatment he could afford” but stopped trying 10 years ago. A treatment in Germany “gave me 80% of my pigment back, but it has gone again,” he said. “I would love to have my face back again. I was born a Black child, and I’d like to die a Black man.”
Patients also spoke of their skin burning easily outdoors; skin sensitivity, itchiness, and burning with the spread of disease; treatment expenses and not being able to afford treatment; and worsening of their vitiligo with the stress of the pandemic. Parents expressed having fear that their children would develop vitiligo and experience bullying, isolation, or other emotional or psychosocial impacts that they had experienced; one described having an almost-paralyzing anxiety when he saw patchy white spots on his 20-month-old daughter (it was not diagnosed as vitiligo).
Calls for further advancement with home phototherapy – which Dr. Desai said is a growing market but not yet adequately covered by insurance plans – were also made, as were pleas for research on the root causes of the disease.
Patients clearly indicated “that they need more efficacious treatments, and more comprehensive treatments,” said Dr. Desai, who chairs the advisory committee of the Global Vitiligo Foundation. “It’s disappointing to me that patients come in with a not fully optimistic viewpoint, with a lot of anxiety and angst that treatments are not going to work. … But the Agency needs to hear that. This means that there haven’t been good treatments and we need more.”
The FDA will accept public comments until May 10, 2021, at which time comments will be compiled into a summary report. FDA officials assured patients that the report would be visible and circulated not only within the FDA but among drug companies, researchers, and other product developers.
Patients with vitiligo have faced significant impacts psychosocially and in many cases, profound losses of identity – and they’ve had only minimal success with treatment, according to participants who spoke at and provided input at a public meeting on patient-focused drug development for the disease.
The virtual meeting, held in March, was part of the Food and Drug Administration’s Patient-Focused Drug Development (PFDD) initiative, which began in 2012 and aims to provide a systematic way for patients’ experiences, needs and priorities to be “captured and meaningfully incorporated” into drug development and evaluation.
Seemal Desai, MD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Texas, Dallas, who attended the meeting as an observer, said in a later interview that while “all skin diseases have a psychosocial component … vitiligo is a really unique one, because it really relates to the patient’s own identity.
“What I heard loud and clear from the FDA [leaders who ran and attended the meeting] is recognition that patients are suffering. They needed to hear about the emotional devastation of the disease and how it is a medical condition,” Dr. Desai said.
The meeting was the “first-ever vitiligo meeting at the FDA” and was a “historic moment for the vitiligo community,” he added.
The pigmentation disorder affects 1% of the world’s population. Nearly 50% have an onset before age 20, and onset before age 12 is common, Brenda Carr, MD, medical officer with the FDA’s Division of Dermatology and Dentistry in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in an introductory overview.
The only FDA-approved treatment for vitiligo is monobenzone cream, but this is indicated for final depigmentation in extensive vitiligo and is no longer marketed. Treatment options include corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, vitamin D analogues, phototherapy, surgical treatments (tissue grafts and cellular grafts), and camouflage (make-up, tattoos, self-tanning products), Dr. Carr said.
Patients participated in one of two panels – one about the health effects and daily impacts of vitiligo and the other about treatments – or submitted input electronically. All patients were invited to answer poll questions and open-ended queries, including questions about how they would assess new treatments.
Several panel members who are Black shared series of photos that showed the evolution of defined white patches into widespread, generalized depigmentation. One man with skin of color who lives in the Netherlands said he has had vitiligo since the age of 12, but that when he became older, over a 4-year period, he was “transformed from a man of Indonesian roots to a totally white man.”
Experiencing only minimal benefit from treatment and the short-term effectiveness of treatments were the top two answers to a poll question asking participants about the most burdensome impacts of the medical products and interventions they have used. Difficulty in accessing treatment, concern about serious risks of treatment, and uncertainty about long-term effects of treatment were other frequently chosen answers.
Patients described the onerous nature of phototherapy (treatments repeated several times a week over long periods) and other treatments, and several described feeling that some physicians did not take the condition seriously or fully know of treatment options.
In her closing remarks, Kendall Marcus, MD, director of the Division of Dermatology and Dentistry at the FDA, acknowledged the input. “Some of you have had difficulty having your disease taken seriously by physicians who view it as a cosmetic condition and are reluctant to treat because they believe your expectations will not be met, that it will be an exercise in frustration,” she said.
Regarding the impacts of treatments that have been utilized, “some of the treatments make it impossible to do other activities such as work or care for yourself in other ways,” Dr. Marcus said. “Certainly that’s not the kind of treatment … that anybody wants to have.”
Dr. Desai, who utilizes an array of oral and topical treatments and phototherapies in his practice, said he was surprised and disheartened to hear the level of concern about side effects of treatment. Most of those who expressed concerns alluded to phototherapy. “I think light treatments are very safe and effective,” he said in the interview. “I might equate [such concerns] to the older PUVA [psoralen plus UVA ultraviolet light] therapy, but not so much the newer therapies.”
The FDA participants probed patients for their perspective on a meaningful level of repigmentation and an acceptable level of risk for any new hypothetical treatment. Specifically, they asked whether patients would use a new topical cream approved for vitiligo if the cream needed to be applied once a day, would have up to 50% efficacy in some people, and would have common side effects of redness and irritation at the application site, mild acne, and burning, as well as several rarer but more serious side effects.
Only 36% answered yes; 24% said no, and 40% answered maybe. Some patients said during the meeting that they had accepted their condition and were not pursuing any treatment. Others said they were very interested in treatment but only if the level of repigmentation were significantly higher than 50%. Some described their fear that positive treatment effects would be short term only.
Meri Izrail Kohen, who lives in France and has lost half of her skin’s pigmentation, said that treatment efficacy is “not only about how much recovery of pigment it allows, but how long the recovery will last.” Some treatments will work for some patients, she said, “but even in these cases when we stop the treatment, it will come back somehow.”
Lee Thomas, a TV anchor in Detroit, and a reporter and author of the book “Turning White,” described how he tried “every treatment he could afford” but stopped trying 10 years ago. A treatment in Germany “gave me 80% of my pigment back, but it has gone again,” he said. “I would love to have my face back again. I was born a Black child, and I’d like to die a Black man.”
Patients also spoke of their skin burning easily outdoors; skin sensitivity, itchiness, and burning with the spread of disease; treatment expenses and not being able to afford treatment; and worsening of their vitiligo with the stress of the pandemic. Parents expressed having fear that their children would develop vitiligo and experience bullying, isolation, or other emotional or psychosocial impacts that they had experienced; one described having an almost-paralyzing anxiety when he saw patchy white spots on his 20-month-old daughter (it was not diagnosed as vitiligo).
Calls for further advancement with home phototherapy – which Dr. Desai said is a growing market but not yet adequately covered by insurance plans – were also made, as were pleas for research on the root causes of the disease.
Patients clearly indicated “that they need more efficacious treatments, and more comprehensive treatments,” said Dr. Desai, who chairs the advisory committee of the Global Vitiligo Foundation. “It’s disappointing to me that patients come in with a not fully optimistic viewpoint, with a lot of anxiety and angst that treatments are not going to work. … But the Agency needs to hear that. This means that there haven’t been good treatments and we need more.”
The FDA will accept public comments until May 10, 2021, at which time comments will be compiled into a summary report. FDA officials assured patients that the report would be visible and circulated not only within the FDA but among drug companies, researchers, and other product developers.
Patients with vitiligo have faced significant impacts psychosocially and in many cases, profound losses of identity – and they’ve had only minimal success with treatment, according to participants who spoke at and provided input at a public meeting on patient-focused drug development for the disease.
The virtual meeting, held in March, was part of the Food and Drug Administration’s Patient-Focused Drug Development (PFDD) initiative, which began in 2012 and aims to provide a systematic way for patients’ experiences, needs and priorities to be “captured and meaningfully incorporated” into drug development and evaluation.
Seemal Desai, MD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Texas, Dallas, who attended the meeting as an observer, said in a later interview that while “all skin diseases have a psychosocial component … vitiligo is a really unique one, because it really relates to the patient’s own identity.
“What I heard loud and clear from the FDA [leaders who ran and attended the meeting] is recognition that patients are suffering. They needed to hear about the emotional devastation of the disease and how it is a medical condition,” Dr. Desai said.
The meeting was the “first-ever vitiligo meeting at the FDA” and was a “historic moment for the vitiligo community,” he added.
The pigmentation disorder affects 1% of the world’s population. Nearly 50% have an onset before age 20, and onset before age 12 is common, Brenda Carr, MD, medical officer with the FDA’s Division of Dermatology and Dentistry in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in an introductory overview.
The only FDA-approved treatment for vitiligo is monobenzone cream, but this is indicated for final depigmentation in extensive vitiligo and is no longer marketed. Treatment options include corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, vitamin D analogues, phototherapy, surgical treatments (tissue grafts and cellular grafts), and camouflage (make-up, tattoos, self-tanning products), Dr. Carr said.
Patients participated in one of two panels – one about the health effects and daily impacts of vitiligo and the other about treatments – or submitted input electronically. All patients were invited to answer poll questions and open-ended queries, including questions about how they would assess new treatments.
Several panel members who are Black shared series of photos that showed the evolution of defined white patches into widespread, generalized depigmentation. One man with skin of color who lives in the Netherlands said he has had vitiligo since the age of 12, but that when he became older, over a 4-year period, he was “transformed from a man of Indonesian roots to a totally white man.”
Experiencing only minimal benefit from treatment and the short-term effectiveness of treatments were the top two answers to a poll question asking participants about the most burdensome impacts of the medical products and interventions they have used. Difficulty in accessing treatment, concern about serious risks of treatment, and uncertainty about long-term effects of treatment were other frequently chosen answers.
Patients described the onerous nature of phototherapy (treatments repeated several times a week over long periods) and other treatments, and several described feeling that some physicians did not take the condition seriously or fully know of treatment options.
In her closing remarks, Kendall Marcus, MD, director of the Division of Dermatology and Dentistry at the FDA, acknowledged the input. “Some of you have had difficulty having your disease taken seriously by physicians who view it as a cosmetic condition and are reluctant to treat because they believe your expectations will not be met, that it will be an exercise in frustration,” she said.
Regarding the impacts of treatments that have been utilized, “some of the treatments make it impossible to do other activities such as work or care for yourself in other ways,” Dr. Marcus said. “Certainly that’s not the kind of treatment … that anybody wants to have.”
Dr. Desai, who utilizes an array of oral and topical treatments and phototherapies in his practice, said he was surprised and disheartened to hear the level of concern about side effects of treatment. Most of those who expressed concerns alluded to phototherapy. “I think light treatments are very safe and effective,” he said in the interview. “I might equate [such concerns] to the older PUVA [psoralen plus UVA ultraviolet light] therapy, but not so much the newer therapies.”
The FDA participants probed patients for their perspective on a meaningful level of repigmentation and an acceptable level of risk for any new hypothetical treatment. Specifically, they asked whether patients would use a new topical cream approved for vitiligo if the cream needed to be applied once a day, would have up to 50% efficacy in some people, and would have common side effects of redness and irritation at the application site, mild acne, and burning, as well as several rarer but more serious side effects.
Only 36% answered yes; 24% said no, and 40% answered maybe. Some patients said during the meeting that they had accepted their condition and were not pursuing any treatment. Others said they were very interested in treatment but only if the level of repigmentation were significantly higher than 50%. Some described their fear that positive treatment effects would be short term only.
Meri Izrail Kohen, who lives in France and has lost half of her skin’s pigmentation, said that treatment efficacy is “not only about how much recovery of pigment it allows, but how long the recovery will last.” Some treatments will work for some patients, she said, “but even in these cases when we stop the treatment, it will come back somehow.”
Lee Thomas, a TV anchor in Detroit, and a reporter and author of the book “Turning White,” described how he tried “every treatment he could afford” but stopped trying 10 years ago. A treatment in Germany “gave me 80% of my pigment back, but it has gone again,” he said. “I would love to have my face back again. I was born a Black child, and I’d like to die a Black man.”
Patients also spoke of their skin burning easily outdoors; skin sensitivity, itchiness, and burning with the spread of disease; treatment expenses and not being able to afford treatment; and worsening of their vitiligo with the stress of the pandemic. Parents expressed having fear that their children would develop vitiligo and experience bullying, isolation, or other emotional or psychosocial impacts that they had experienced; one described having an almost-paralyzing anxiety when he saw patchy white spots on his 20-month-old daughter (it was not diagnosed as vitiligo).
Calls for further advancement with home phototherapy – which Dr. Desai said is a growing market but not yet adequately covered by insurance plans – were also made, as were pleas for research on the root causes of the disease.
Patients clearly indicated “that they need more efficacious treatments, and more comprehensive treatments,” said Dr. Desai, who chairs the advisory committee of the Global Vitiligo Foundation. “It’s disappointing to me that patients come in with a not fully optimistic viewpoint, with a lot of anxiety and angst that treatments are not going to work. … But the Agency needs to hear that. This means that there haven’t been good treatments and we need more.”
The FDA will accept public comments until May 10, 2021, at which time comments will be compiled into a summary report. FDA officials assured patients that the report would be visible and circulated not only within the FDA but among drug companies, researchers, and other product developers.
FROM AN FDA PATIENT-FOCUSED DRUG DEVELOPMENT MEETING
Arcalyst gets FDA nod as first therapy for recurrent pericarditis
The Food and Drug Administration has approved rilonacept (Arcalyst) to treat recurrent pericarditis and reduce the risk for recurrence in adults and children 12 years and older.
Approval of the weekly subcutaneous injection offers patients the first and only FDA-approved therapy for recurrent pericarditis, the agency said in a release.
Recurrent pericarditis is characterized by a remitting relapsing inflammation of the pericardium, and therapeutic options have been limited to NSAIDs, colchicine, and corticosteroids.
Rilonacept is a recombinant fusion protein that blocks interleukin-1 alpha and interleukin-1 beta signaling. It is already approved by the FDA to treat a group of rare inherited inflammatory diseases called cryopyrin-associated periodic syndromes.
The new indication is based on the pivotal phase 3 RHAPSODY trial in 86 patients with acute symptoms of recurrent pericarditis and systemic inflammation. After randomization, pericarditis recurred in 2 of 30 patients (7%) treated with rilonacept and in 23 of 31 patients (74%) treated with placebo, representing a 96% reduction in the relative risk for recurrence with rilonacept.
Patients who received rilonacept were also pain free or had minimal pain on 98% of trial days, whereas those who received placebo had minimal or no pain on 46% of trial days.
The most common adverse effects of rilonacept are injection-site reactions and upper-respiratory tract infections.
Serious, life-threatening infections have been reported in patients taking rilonacept, according to the FDA. Patients with active or chronic infections should not take the drug.
The FDA label also advises that patients should avoid live vaccines while taking rilonacept and that it should be discontinued if a hypersensitivity reaction occurs.
The commercial launch is expected in April, according to the company.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved rilonacept (Arcalyst) to treat recurrent pericarditis and reduce the risk for recurrence in adults and children 12 years and older.
Approval of the weekly subcutaneous injection offers patients the first and only FDA-approved therapy for recurrent pericarditis, the agency said in a release.
Recurrent pericarditis is characterized by a remitting relapsing inflammation of the pericardium, and therapeutic options have been limited to NSAIDs, colchicine, and corticosteroids.
Rilonacept is a recombinant fusion protein that blocks interleukin-1 alpha and interleukin-1 beta signaling. It is already approved by the FDA to treat a group of rare inherited inflammatory diseases called cryopyrin-associated periodic syndromes.
The new indication is based on the pivotal phase 3 RHAPSODY trial in 86 patients with acute symptoms of recurrent pericarditis and systemic inflammation. After randomization, pericarditis recurred in 2 of 30 patients (7%) treated with rilonacept and in 23 of 31 patients (74%) treated with placebo, representing a 96% reduction in the relative risk for recurrence with rilonacept.
Patients who received rilonacept were also pain free or had minimal pain on 98% of trial days, whereas those who received placebo had minimal or no pain on 46% of trial days.
The most common adverse effects of rilonacept are injection-site reactions and upper-respiratory tract infections.
Serious, life-threatening infections have been reported in patients taking rilonacept, according to the FDA. Patients with active or chronic infections should not take the drug.
The FDA label also advises that patients should avoid live vaccines while taking rilonacept and that it should be discontinued if a hypersensitivity reaction occurs.
The commercial launch is expected in April, according to the company.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved rilonacept (Arcalyst) to treat recurrent pericarditis and reduce the risk for recurrence in adults and children 12 years and older.
Approval of the weekly subcutaneous injection offers patients the first and only FDA-approved therapy for recurrent pericarditis, the agency said in a release.
Recurrent pericarditis is characterized by a remitting relapsing inflammation of the pericardium, and therapeutic options have been limited to NSAIDs, colchicine, and corticosteroids.
Rilonacept is a recombinant fusion protein that blocks interleukin-1 alpha and interleukin-1 beta signaling. It is already approved by the FDA to treat a group of rare inherited inflammatory diseases called cryopyrin-associated periodic syndromes.
The new indication is based on the pivotal phase 3 RHAPSODY trial in 86 patients with acute symptoms of recurrent pericarditis and systemic inflammation. After randomization, pericarditis recurred in 2 of 30 patients (7%) treated with rilonacept and in 23 of 31 patients (74%) treated with placebo, representing a 96% reduction in the relative risk for recurrence with rilonacept.
Patients who received rilonacept were also pain free or had minimal pain on 98% of trial days, whereas those who received placebo had minimal or no pain on 46% of trial days.
The most common adverse effects of rilonacept are injection-site reactions and upper-respiratory tract infections.
Serious, life-threatening infections have been reported in patients taking rilonacept, according to the FDA. Patients with active or chronic infections should not take the drug.
The FDA label also advises that patients should avoid live vaccines while taking rilonacept and that it should be discontinued if a hypersensitivity reaction occurs.
The commercial launch is expected in April, according to the company.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA warning letters target OTC cannabidiol product claims for pain relief
The Food and Drug Administration has warned two manufacturers about illegal marketing of drugs containing cannabidiol (CBD) for over-the-counter use without an approved new drug application, for using substandard manufacturing processes, and for failure to comply with current good manufacturing practices. These warnings add to 51 previous warning letters issued by the FDA since 2015 to other manufacturers of products containing CBD who were violating the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
In a news release, the agency explained that its two most recent letters, sent to Honest Globe Inc. on March 15 and BioLyte Laboratories LLC on March 18, were issued because CBD has “known pharmacologic effects on humans, with demonstrated risks, it cannot be legally marketed as an inactive ingredient in OTC drug products that are not reviewed and approved by the FDA.” They also describe the companies’ failures to comply with current good manufacturing practices.
“The FDA continues to alert the public to potential safety and efficacy concerns with unapproved CBD products sold online and in stores across the country,” FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner Amy P. Abernethy, MD, PhD, said in the release. “It’s important that consumers understand that the FDA has only approved one drug containing CBD as an ingredient [Epidiolex]. These other, unapproved, CBD products may have dangerous health impacts and side effects. We remain focused on exploring potential pathways for CBD products to be lawfully marketed while also educating the public about these outstanding questions of CBD’s safety. Meanwhile, we will continue to monitor and take action, as needed, against companies that unlawfully market their products – prioritizing those that pose a risk to public health.”
The specific products from Santa Ana, Calif.–based Honest Globe that the FDA called unapproved new drugs and misbranded under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act included Elixicure Original Pain Relief and Elixicure Lavender Pain Relief, both of which were described as containing CBD. Products from Grand Rapids, Mich.–based BioLyte Laboratories LLC that the FDA similarly cited for violations included Silver Gel, Silver Gel with Aloe, Silver Liquid Supplement, Therapeutic Pain Gel, Pain Relief Cream, and Magnesium Oil Spray.
The agency has asked the two companies to respond to its letters within 15 working days, “stating how they will address these violations or providing their reasoning and supporting information as to why they believe these products are not in violation of the law. Failure to adequately address the violations promptly may result in legal action, including product seizure and/or injunction.”
The Food and Drug Administration has warned two manufacturers about illegal marketing of drugs containing cannabidiol (CBD) for over-the-counter use without an approved new drug application, for using substandard manufacturing processes, and for failure to comply with current good manufacturing practices. These warnings add to 51 previous warning letters issued by the FDA since 2015 to other manufacturers of products containing CBD who were violating the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
In a news release, the agency explained that its two most recent letters, sent to Honest Globe Inc. on March 15 and BioLyte Laboratories LLC on March 18, were issued because CBD has “known pharmacologic effects on humans, with demonstrated risks, it cannot be legally marketed as an inactive ingredient in OTC drug products that are not reviewed and approved by the FDA.” They also describe the companies’ failures to comply with current good manufacturing practices.
“The FDA continues to alert the public to potential safety and efficacy concerns with unapproved CBD products sold online and in stores across the country,” FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner Amy P. Abernethy, MD, PhD, said in the release. “It’s important that consumers understand that the FDA has only approved one drug containing CBD as an ingredient [Epidiolex]. These other, unapproved, CBD products may have dangerous health impacts and side effects. We remain focused on exploring potential pathways for CBD products to be lawfully marketed while also educating the public about these outstanding questions of CBD’s safety. Meanwhile, we will continue to monitor and take action, as needed, against companies that unlawfully market their products – prioritizing those that pose a risk to public health.”
The specific products from Santa Ana, Calif.–based Honest Globe that the FDA called unapproved new drugs and misbranded under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act included Elixicure Original Pain Relief and Elixicure Lavender Pain Relief, both of which were described as containing CBD. Products from Grand Rapids, Mich.–based BioLyte Laboratories LLC that the FDA similarly cited for violations included Silver Gel, Silver Gel with Aloe, Silver Liquid Supplement, Therapeutic Pain Gel, Pain Relief Cream, and Magnesium Oil Spray.
The agency has asked the two companies to respond to its letters within 15 working days, “stating how they will address these violations or providing their reasoning and supporting information as to why they believe these products are not in violation of the law. Failure to adequately address the violations promptly may result in legal action, including product seizure and/or injunction.”
The Food and Drug Administration has warned two manufacturers about illegal marketing of drugs containing cannabidiol (CBD) for over-the-counter use without an approved new drug application, for using substandard manufacturing processes, and for failure to comply with current good manufacturing practices. These warnings add to 51 previous warning letters issued by the FDA since 2015 to other manufacturers of products containing CBD who were violating the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
In a news release, the agency explained that its two most recent letters, sent to Honest Globe Inc. on March 15 and BioLyte Laboratories LLC on March 18, were issued because CBD has “known pharmacologic effects on humans, with demonstrated risks, it cannot be legally marketed as an inactive ingredient in OTC drug products that are not reviewed and approved by the FDA.” They also describe the companies’ failures to comply with current good manufacturing practices.
“The FDA continues to alert the public to potential safety and efficacy concerns with unapproved CBD products sold online and in stores across the country,” FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner Amy P. Abernethy, MD, PhD, said in the release. “It’s important that consumers understand that the FDA has only approved one drug containing CBD as an ingredient [Epidiolex]. These other, unapproved, CBD products may have dangerous health impacts and side effects. We remain focused on exploring potential pathways for CBD products to be lawfully marketed while also educating the public about these outstanding questions of CBD’s safety. Meanwhile, we will continue to monitor and take action, as needed, against companies that unlawfully market their products – prioritizing those that pose a risk to public health.”
The specific products from Santa Ana, Calif.–based Honest Globe that the FDA called unapproved new drugs and misbranded under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act included Elixicure Original Pain Relief and Elixicure Lavender Pain Relief, both of which were described as containing CBD. Products from Grand Rapids, Mich.–based BioLyte Laboratories LLC that the FDA similarly cited for violations included Silver Gel, Silver Gel with Aloe, Silver Liquid Supplement, Therapeutic Pain Gel, Pain Relief Cream, and Magnesium Oil Spray.
The agency has asked the two companies to respond to its letters within 15 working days, “stating how they will address these violations or providing their reasoning and supporting information as to why they believe these products are not in violation of the law. Failure to adequately address the violations promptly may result in legal action, including product seizure and/or injunction.”
Black nonsmokers still at high risk for secondhand smoke exposure
Despite 30+ years of antismoking public policies and dramatic overall decline in secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure, .
No risk-free SHS exposure
Surendranath S. Shastri, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and colleagues underscored the U.S. Surgeon General’s determination that there is no risk-free level of SHS exposure in a recent JAMA Internal Medicine Research Letter.
“With the outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019, which affects lung function, improving smoke-free policies to enhance air quality should be a growing priority,”they wrote.
Dr. Shastri and colleagues looked at 2011-2018 data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), which detailed prevalence of SHS exposure in the U.S. population aged 3 years and older using interviews and biological specimens to test for cotinine levels. For the survey, nonsmokers having serum cotinine levels of 0.05 to 10 ng/mL were considered to have SHS exposure.
While the prevalence of SHS exposure among nonsmokers declined from 87.5% to 25.3% between 1988 and 2012, levels have stagnated since 2012 and racial and economic disparities are evident. Higher smoking rates, less knowledge about health risks, higher workplace exposure, greater likelihood of living in low-income, multi-unit housing, plus having their communities targeted by tobacco companies, may all help explain higher serum levels of cotinine in populations with lower socioeconomic status.
“Multivariable logistic regression identified younger age (odds ratio [OR], 1.88, for 12-19 years, and OR, 2.29, for 3-11 years), non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity (OR, 2.75), less than high school education (OR, 1.59), and living below the poverty level (OR, 2.61) as risk factors for SHSe in the 2017-2018 cycle, with little change across all data cycles,” the researchers wrote.
Disparities in SHS exposure
A second report from NHANES data for 2015-2018, published in a National Center for Health Statistics Data Brief (No. 396, February 2021) showed that 20.8% of nonsmoking U.S. adults had SHS exposure, again with greater prevalence among non-Hispanic Black adults (39.7%), than for non-Hispanic White (18.4%), non-Hispanic Asian (20.9%), and Hispanic (17.2%) adults. Exposure was also greater in the younger age groups, with SHS rates for adults aged 18-39 years, 40-59 years, and ≥60 years at 25.6%, 19.1%, and 17.6%, respectively. Lower education (high school or less vs. some college education) and lower income levels were also associated with higher levels of SHS exposure. The investigators noted that among households with smokers, non-Hispanic Black adults are less likely to have complete smoking bans in homes, and among Medicaid or uninsured parents of any race or ethnicity, bans on smoking in family vehicles are less likely.
Overall, the prevalence of SHS exposure declined from 27.7% to 20.7% from 2009 to 2018, but the decreases were mediated by race and income.
SHS exposure in private spaces
A research brief from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on SHS exposure in homes and vehicles in the U.S. among middle and high school students also found a general decline in SHS exposure over 2011-2018 in homes (26.8%-20.9%; P < .001) and vehicles (30.2%-19.8%; P < .001). The findings, derived from the National Youth Tobacco Survey for 2011-2019, showed that no reduction occurred in homes among non-Hispanic Black students. Overall, a significant difference in home SHS exposure was observed by race/ethnicity: non-Hispanic Black (28.4%) and non-Hispanic White (27.4%) students both had a higher prevalence compared with Hispanic (20.0%) and non-Hispanic other (20.2%) students (P < .001).
Progress in reducing SHS exposure in public spaces has been made over the last 2 decades, with 27 states and more than 1,000 municipalities implementing comprehensive smoke-free laws that prohibit smoking in indoor public places, including workplaces, restaurants, and bars. While the prevalence of voluntary smoke-free home (83.7%) and vehicle (78.1%) rules has increased over time, private settings remain major sources of SHS exposure for many people, including youths. “Although SHS exposures have declined,” the authors wrote, “more than 6 million young people remain exposed to SHS in these private settings.”
In reviewing the data, Mary Cataletto, MD, FCCP, clinical professor of pediatrics at NYU Long Island School of Medicine, stated that these studies “highlight the need for implementation of smoke-free policies to reduce exposure to secondhand smoke, especially in homes and cars and with focused advocacy efforts in highly affected communities.”
Panagis Galiatsatos, MD, MHS, assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, emphasized implementation of smoke-free policies but also treatment for smokers. “I’m not at all surprised by these statistics,” he noted in an interview. “Public health policies have helped us to get to where we are now, but there’s a reason that we have plateaued over the last decade. It’s hard to mitigate secondhand smoke exposure because the ones who are smoking now are the most refractory, challenging cases. ... You need good clinical interventions with counseling supported by pharmacological agents to help them if you want to stop secondhand smoke exposure.” He added, “You have to look at current smokers no differently than you look at patients with stage IV cancer – a group that requires a lot of resources to help them get through. Remember, all of them want to quit, but the promise of well-designed, precision-medicine strategies to help them quit has not been kept. Public health policy isn’t going to do it. We need to manage these patients clinically.”
The investigators had no conflict disclosures.
Despite 30+ years of antismoking public policies and dramatic overall decline in secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure, .
No risk-free SHS exposure
Surendranath S. Shastri, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and colleagues underscored the U.S. Surgeon General’s determination that there is no risk-free level of SHS exposure in a recent JAMA Internal Medicine Research Letter.
“With the outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019, which affects lung function, improving smoke-free policies to enhance air quality should be a growing priority,”they wrote.
Dr. Shastri and colleagues looked at 2011-2018 data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), which detailed prevalence of SHS exposure in the U.S. population aged 3 years and older using interviews and biological specimens to test for cotinine levels. For the survey, nonsmokers having serum cotinine levels of 0.05 to 10 ng/mL were considered to have SHS exposure.
While the prevalence of SHS exposure among nonsmokers declined from 87.5% to 25.3% between 1988 and 2012, levels have stagnated since 2012 and racial and economic disparities are evident. Higher smoking rates, less knowledge about health risks, higher workplace exposure, greater likelihood of living in low-income, multi-unit housing, plus having their communities targeted by tobacco companies, may all help explain higher serum levels of cotinine in populations with lower socioeconomic status.
“Multivariable logistic regression identified younger age (odds ratio [OR], 1.88, for 12-19 years, and OR, 2.29, for 3-11 years), non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity (OR, 2.75), less than high school education (OR, 1.59), and living below the poverty level (OR, 2.61) as risk factors for SHSe in the 2017-2018 cycle, with little change across all data cycles,” the researchers wrote.
Disparities in SHS exposure
A second report from NHANES data for 2015-2018, published in a National Center for Health Statistics Data Brief (No. 396, February 2021) showed that 20.8% of nonsmoking U.S. adults had SHS exposure, again with greater prevalence among non-Hispanic Black adults (39.7%), than for non-Hispanic White (18.4%), non-Hispanic Asian (20.9%), and Hispanic (17.2%) adults. Exposure was also greater in the younger age groups, with SHS rates for adults aged 18-39 years, 40-59 years, and ≥60 years at 25.6%, 19.1%, and 17.6%, respectively. Lower education (high school or less vs. some college education) and lower income levels were also associated with higher levels of SHS exposure. The investigators noted that among households with smokers, non-Hispanic Black adults are less likely to have complete smoking bans in homes, and among Medicaid or uninsured parents of any race or ethnicity, bans on smoking in family vehicles are less likely.
Overall, the prevalence of SHS exposure declined from 27.7% to 20.7% from 2009 to 2018, but the decreases were mediated by race and income.
SHS exposure in private spaces
A research brief from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on SHS exposure in homes and vehicles in the U.S. among middle and high school students also found a general decline in SHS exposure over 2011-2018 in homes (26.8%-20.9%; P < .001) and vehicles (30.2%-19.8%; P < .001). The findings, derived from the National Youth Tobacco Survey for 2011-2019, showed that no reduction occurred in homes among non-Hispanic Black students. Overall, a significant difference in home SHS exposure was observed by race/ethnicity: non-Hispanic Black (28.4%) and non-Hispanic White (27.4%) students both had a higher prevalence compared with Hispanic (20.0%) and non-Hispanic other (20.2%) students (P < .001).
Progress in reducing SHS exposure in public spaces has been made over the last 2 decades, with 27 states and more than 1,000 municipalities implementing comprehensive smoke-free laws that prohibit smoking in indoor public places, including workplaces, restaurants, and bars. While the prevalence of voluntary smoke-free home (83.7%) and vehicle (78.1%) rules has increased over time, private settings remain major sources of SHS exposure for many people, including youths. “Although SHS exposures have declined,” the authors wrote, “more than 6 million young people remain exposed to SHS in these private settings.”
In reviewing the data, Mary Cataletto, MD, FCCP, clinical professor of pediatrics at NYU Long Island School of Medicine, stated that these studies “highlight the need for implementation of smoke-free policies to reduce exposure to secondhand smoke, especially in homes and cars and with focused advocacy efforts in highly affected communities.”
Panagis Galiatsatos, MD, MHS, assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, emphasized implementation of smoke-free policies but also treatment for smokers. “I’m not at all surprised by these statistics,” he noted in an interview. “Public health policies have helped us to get to where we are now, but there’s a reason that we have plateaued over the last decade. It’s hard to mitigate secondhand smoke exposure because the ones who are smoking now are the most refractory, challenging cases. ... You need good clinical interventions with counseling supported by pharmacological agents to help them if you want to stop secondhand smoke exposure.” He added, “You have to look at current smokers no differently than you look at patients with stage IV cancer – a group that requires a lot of resources to help them get through. Remember, all of them want to quit, but the promise of well-designed, precision-medicine strategies to help them quit has not been kept. Public health policy isn’t going to do it. We need to manage these patients clinically.”
The investigators had no conflict disclosures.
Despite 30+ years of antismoking public policies and dramatic overall decline in secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure, .
No risk-free SHS exposure
Surendranath S. Shastri, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and colleagues underscored the U.S. Surgeon General’s determination that there is no risk-free level of SHS exposure in a recent JAMA Internal Medicine Research Letter.
“With the outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019, which affects lung function, improving smoke-free policies to enhance air quality should be a growing priority,”they wrote.
Dr. Shastri and colleagues looked at 2011-2018 data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), which detailed prevalence of SHS exposure in the U.S. population aged 3 years and older using interviews and biological specimens to test for cotinine levels. For the survey, nonsmokers having serum cotinine levels of 0.05 to 10 ng/mL were considered to have SHS exposure.
While the prevalence of SHS exposure among nonsmokers declined from 87.5% to 25.3% between 1988 and 2012, levels have stagnated since 2012 and racial and economic disparities are evident. Higher smoking rates, less knowledge about health risks, higher workplace exposure, greater likelihood of living in low-income, multi-unit housing, plus having their communities targeted by tobacco companies, may all help explain higher serum levels of cotinine in populations with lower socioeconomic status.
“Multivariable logistic regression identified younger age (odds ratio [OR], 1.88, for 12-19 years, and OR, 2.29, for 3-11 years), non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity (OR, 2.75), less than high school education (OR, 1.59), and living below the poverty level (OR, 2.61) as risk factors for SHSe in the 2017-2018 cycle, with little change across all data cycles,” the researchers wrote.
Disparities in SHS exposure
A second report from NHANES data for 2015-2018, published in a National Center for Health Statistics Data Brief (No. 396, February 2021) showed that 20.8% of nonsmoking U.S. adults had SHS exposure, again with greater prevalence among non-Hispanic Black adults (39.7%), than for non-Hispanic White (18.4%), non-Hispanic Asian (20.9%), and Hispanic (17.2%) adults. Exposure was also greater in the younger age groups, with SHS rates for adults aged 18-39 years, 40-59 years, and ≥60 years at 25.6%, 19.1%, and 17.6%, respectively. Lower education (high school or less vs. some college education) and lower income levels were also associated with higher levels of SHS exposure. The investigators noted that among households with smokers, non-Hispanic Black adults are less likely to have complete smoking bans in homes, and among Medicaid or uninsured parents of any race or ethnicity, bans on smoking in family vehicles are less likely.
Overall, the prevalence of SHS exposure declined from 27.7% to 20.7% from 2009 to 2018, but the decreases were mediated by race and income.
SHS exposure in private spaces
A research brief from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on SHS exposure in homes and vehicles in the U.S. among middle and high school students also found a general decline in SHS exposure over 2011-2018 in homes (26.8%-20.9%; P < .001) and vehicles (30.2%-19.8%; P < .001). The findings, derived from the National Youth Tobacco Survey for 2011-2019, showed that no reduction occurred in homes among non-Hispanic Black students. Overall, a significant difference in home SHS exposure was observed by race/ethnicity: non-Hispanic Black (28.4%) and non-Hispanic White (27.4%) students both had a higher prevalence compared with Hispanic (20.0%) and non-Hispanic other (20.2%) students (P < .001).
Progress in reducing SHS exposure in public spaces has been made over the last 2 decades, with 27 states and more than 1,000 municipalities implementing comprehensive smoke-free laws that prohibit smoking in indoor public places, including workplaces, restaurants, and bars. While the prevalence of voluntary smoke-free home (83.7%) and vehicle (78.1%) rules has increased over time, private settings remain major sources of SHS exposure for many people, including youths. “Although SHS exposures have declined,” the authors wrote, “more than 6 million young people remain exposed to SHS in these private settings.”
In reviewing the data, Mary Cataletto, MD, FCCP, clinical professor of pediatrics at NYU Long Island School of Medicine, stated that these studies “highlight the need for implementation of smoke-free policies to reduce exposure to secondhand smoke, especially in homes and cars and with focused advocacy efforts in highly affected communities.”
Panagis Galiatsatos, MD, MHS, assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, emphasized implementation of smoke-free policies but also treatment for smokers. “I’m not at all surprised by these statistics,” he noted in an interview. “Public health policies have helped us to get to where we are now, but there’s a reason that we have plateaued over the last decade. It’s hard to mitigate secondhand smoke exposure because the ones who are smoking now are the most refractory, challenging cases. ... You need good clinical interventions with counseling supported by pharmacological agents to help them if you want to stop secondhand smoke exposure.” He added, “You have to look at current smokers no differently than you look at patients with stage IV cancer – a group that requires a lot of resources to help them get through. Remember, all of them want to quit, but the promise of well-designed, precision-medicine strategies to help them quit has not been kept. Public health policy isn’t going to do it. We need to manage these patients clinically.”
The investigators had no conflict disclosures.
FDA scrutinizes cancer therapies granted accelerated approval
U.S. regulators are stepping up scrutiny of therapies that were granted an accelerated approval to treat cancers on the basis of surrogate endpoints but have failed to show clinical or survival benefits upon more extensive testing.
At issue are a number of cancer indications for immunotherapies. Four have already been withdrawn (voluntarily by the manufacturer), and six more will be reviewed at an upcoming meeting.
In recent years, the US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approvals to oncology medicines on the basis of evidence that suggests a benefit for patients. Examples of such evidence relate to response rates and estimates of tumor shrinkage. But these approvals are granted on the condition that the manufacturer conducts larger clinical trials that show clinical benefit, including benefit in overall survival.
Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, has argued that the point of these conditional approvals is to find acceptable surrogate markers to allow people with “desperate illnesses” to have access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine the drug’s actual benefit to patients.
Oncologists are now questioning whether the FDA has become too lenient in its approach, Daniel A. Goldstein, MD, a senior physician in medical oncology and internal medicine at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, told this news organization.
“The main two things you want from a cancer drug is to live longer and live a higher quality of life,” said Goldstein. “But these endpoints that they’ve been using over the past few years are not really giving us confidence that these drugs are actually going to help to live longer or better.”
Dr. Pazdur said the FDA will consider withdrawing its accelerated approvals when results of further studies do not confirm expected benefit for patients.
“This is like the pendulum has swung as far as it was going to swing and now is on the backswing,” said Dr. Goldstein, also of the department of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “You could call this a watershed moment.”
Although there’s near universal interest in allowing people with advanced cancer access to promising medicines, there’s also rising concern about exposing patients needlessly to costly drugs with potentially tough side effects. That may prompt a shift in the standards U.S. regulators apply to cancer medicines, Dr. Goldstein said.
Indications withdrawn and under review
In a meeting scheduled for April 27-29, the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee will review indications granted through the accelerated approval process for three immunotherapies: pembrolizumab (Keytruda), atezolizumab (Tecentriq), and nivolumab (Opdivo).
It is part of an industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals for cancer indications in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit, the FDA noted.
The process has already led to voluntary withdrawals of four cancer indications by the manufacturers, including one indication each for pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and nivolumab, and one for durvalumab (Imfinzi).
All of these immunotherapies are approved for numerous cancer indications, and they all remain on the market. It is only the U.S. approvals for particular cancer indications that have been withdrawn.
In the past, olaratumab (Lartruvo) was withdrawn from the market altogether. The FDA granted accelerated approval of the drug for soft tissue sarcoma, but clinical benefit was not confirmed in a phase 3 trial.
Issue highlighted by Dr. Prasad and Dr. Gyawali
In recent years, much of the attention on accelerated approvals was spurred by the work of a few researchers, particularly Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, associate professor in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from Queen’s University Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Ont. (Both are regular contributors to the oncology section of this news organization.)
Dr. Goldstein made this point in a tweet about the FDA’s announcement of the April ODAC meetings:
“Well done to @oncology_bg and @VPrasadMDMPH among others for highlighting in their papers that the FDA wasn’t properly evaluating accelerated approval drugs.
FDA have listened.
And I thought that the impact of academia was limited!”
Dr. Prasad has made the case for closer scrutiny of accelerated approvals in a number of journal articles and in his 2020 book, “Malignant: How Bad Policy and Bad Evidence Harm People with Cancer,” published by Johns Hopkins University Press.
The book includes highlights of a 2016 article published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings that focused on surrogate endpoints used for FDA approvals. In the article, Dr. Prasad and his coauthor report that they did not find formal analyses of the strength of the surrogate-survival correlation in 14 of 25 cases of accelerated approvals (56%) and in 11 of 30 traditional approvals (37%).
“Our results were concerning. They imply that many surrogates are based on little more than a gut feeling. You might rationalize that and argue a gut feeling is the same as ‘reasonably likely to predict,’ but no reasonable person could think a gut feeling means established,” Dr. Prasad writes in his book. “Our result suggests the FDA is using surrogate endpoints far beyond what may be fair or reasonable.”
Dr. Gyawali has argued that the process by which the FDA assesses cancer drugs for approvals has undergone a profound shift. He has most recently remarked on this in an October 2020 commentary on Medscape.
“Until the recent floodgate of approvals based on response rates from single-arm trials, the majority of cancer therapy decisions were supported by evidence generated from randomized controlled trials (RCTs),” Dr. Gyawali wrote. “The evidence base to support clinical decisions in managing therapeutic side effects has been comparatively sparse.”
Accelerated approval to improve access
The FDA has struggled for about 2 decades with questions of where to set the bar on evidence for promising cancer drugs.
The agency’s accelerated approval program for drugs began in 1992. During the first decade, the focus was largely on medicines related to HIV.
In the early 2000s, oncology drugs began to dominate the program.
Dr. Pazdur has presided over the FDA’s marked changes regarding the use of surrogate markers when weighing whether to allow sales of cancer medicines. Formerly a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Dr. Pazdur joined the FDA as director of the Division of Oncology Drug Products in 1999.
Soon after his appointment, he had to field inquiries from pharmaceutical companies about how much evidence they needed to receive accelerated approvals.
Early on, he publicly expressed impatience about the drugmakers’ approach. “The purpose of accelerated approval was not accelerated drug company profits,” Dr. Padzur said at a 2004 ODAC meeting.
Rather, the point is to allow access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine their actual benefit to patients, he explained.
“It wasn’t a license to do less, less, less, and less to a point now that we may be getting companies that are coming in” intent on determining the minimum evidence the FDA will take, Dr. Pazdur said. “It shouldn’t be what is the lowest. It is what is a sufficient amount to give patients and physicians a real understanding of what their drug will do.”
In a 2016 interview with The New York Times, Dr. Pazdur said that his views on cancer drug approvals have evolved with time. He described himself as being “on a jihad to streamline the review process and get things out the door faster.”
“I have evolved from regulator to regulator-advocate,” Dr. Pazdur told the newspaper.
His attitude reflected his personal experience in losing his wife to ovarian cancer in 2015, as well as shifts in science and law. In 2012, Congress passed a law that gave the FDA new resources to speed medicines for life-threatening diseases to market. In addition, advances in genetics appeared to be making some medications more effective and easier to test, Dr. Pazdur said in The New York Times interview.
Withdrawals seen as sign of success
Since the program’s inception, only 6% of accelerated approvals for oncology indications have been withdrawn, the FDA said.
It would be a sign that the program is working if the April meetings lead to further withdrawals of indications that have been granted accelerated approval, Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, said in an interview with this news organization.
“It shouldn’t be seen as a failure,” Dr. Gralow said.
In her own practice at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, she has seen the value of emerging therapies for patients fighting advanced cancers. During her 25 years of clinical practice in an academic setting, she has gained access to drugs through single-patient investigative new drug applications.
However, this path is not an option for many patients who undergo treatment in facilities other than academic centers, she commented. She noted that the accelerated approval process is a way to expand access to emerging medicines, but she sees a need for caution in the use of drugs that have been given only this conditional approval. She emphasizes that such drugs may be suitable only for certain patients.
“I would say that, for metastatic patients, patients with incurable disease, we are willing to take some risk,” Dr. Gralow said. “We don’t have other options. They can’t wait the years that it would take to get a drug approved.”
One such patient is David Mitchell, who serves as the consumer representative on ODAC. He told this news organization that he is taking three drugs for multiple myeloma that received accelerated approvals: pomalidomide, bortezomib, and daratumumab.
“I want the FDA to have the option to approve drugs in an accelerated pathway, because as a patient taking three drugs granted accelerated approval, I’m benefiting – I’ve lived the benefit,” Mr. Mitchell said, “and I want other patients to have the opportunity to have that benefit.”
He believes that the FDA’s approach regarding accelerated approvals serves to get potentially beneficial medicines to patients who have few options and also fulfills the FDA’s mandate to protect the public from treatments that have little benefit but can cause harm.
Accelerated approval also offers needed flexibility to drugmakers as they develop more specifically targeted drugs for diseases that affect relatively few people, such as multiple myeloma, he said. “As the targeting of your therapies gets tighter and for smaller groups of patients, you have a harder time following the traditional model,” such as conducting large, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that may indicate increased overall survival, he said.
“To me, this is the way the FDA intended it to work,” he added. “It’s going to offer the accelerated approval based on a surrogate endpoint for a safe drug, but it’s going to require the confirmatory trial, and if the confirmatory trial fails, it will pull the drug off the market.”
Some medicines that have received accelerated approvals may ultimately be found not to benefit patients, Mr. Mitchell acknowledged. But people in his situation, whose disease has progressed despite treatments, may want to take that risk, he added.
Four cancer indications recently withdrawn voluntarily by the manufacturer
- December 2020: Nivolumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with progression after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other line of therapy (Bristol Myers Squibb).
- February 2021: Durvalumab for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma whose disease has progressed during or following platinum-based chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant platinum-containing chemotherapy (AstraZeneca).
- March 2021: Pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other prior line of therapy (Merck).
- March 2021: Atezolizumab for treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing atezolizumab chemotherapy or disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy (Genentech).
Six cancer indications under review at the April 2021 ODAC meeting
- Atezolizumab indicated in combination with protein-bound for the treatment of adults with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative whose tumors express PD-L1 (PD-L1 stained tumor-infiltrating immune cells of any intensity covering ≥1% of the tumor area), as determined by an FDA-approved test.
- Atezolizumab indicated for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
- Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
- Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with recurrent locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma whose tumors express PD-L1 (Combined Positive Score ≥1), as determined by an FDA-approved test, with disease progression on or after two or more prior lines of therapy including fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy and if appropriate, HER2/neu-targeted therapy.
- Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with who have been previously treated with .
- Nivolumab indicated as a single agent for the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who have been previously treated with sorafenib.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
U.S. regulators are stepping up scrutiny of therapies that were granted an accelerated approval to treat cancers on the basis of surrogate endpoints but have failed to show clinical or survival benefits upon more extensive testing.
At issue are a number of cancer indications for immunotherapies. Four have already been withdrawn (voluntarily by the manufacturer), and six more will be reviewed at an upcoming meeting.
In recent years, the US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approvals to oncology medicines on the basis of evidence that suggests a benefit for patients. Examples of such evidence relate to response rates and estimates of tumor shrinkage. But these approvals are granted on the condition that the manufacturer conducts larger clinical trials that show clinical benefit, including benefit in overall survival.
Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, has argued that the point of these conditional approvals is to find acceptable surrogate markers to allow people with “desperate illnesses” to have access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine the drug’s actual benefit to patients.
Oncologists are now questioning whether the FDA has become too lenient in its approach, Daniel A. Goldstein, MD, a senior physician in medical oncology and internal medicine at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, told this news organization.
“The main two things you want from a cancer drug is to live longer and live a higher quality of life,” said Goldstein. “But these endpoints that they’ve been using over the past few years are not really giving us confidence that these drugs are actually going to help to live longer or better.”
Dr. Pazdur said the FDA will consider withdrawing its accelerated approvals when results of further studies do not confirm expected benefit for patients.
“This is like the pendulum has swung as far as it was going to swing and now is on the backswing,” said Dr. Goldstein, also of the department of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “You could call this a watershed moment.”
Although there’s near universal interest in allowing people with advanced cancer access to promising medicines, there’s also rising concern about exposing patients needlessly to costly drugs with potentially tough side effects. That may prompt a shift in the standards U.S. regulators apply to cancer medicines, Dr. Goldstein said.
Indications withdrawn and under review
In a meeting scheduled for April 27-29, the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee will review indications granted through the accelerated approval process for three immunotherapies: pembrolizumab (Keytruda), atezolizumab (Tecentriq), and nivolumab (Opdivo).
It is part of an industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals for cancer indications in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit, the FDA noted.
The process has already led to voluntary withdrawals of four cancer indications by the manufacturers, including one indication each for pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and nivolumab, and one for durvalumab (Imfinzi).
All of these immunotherapies are approved for numerous cancer indications, and they all remain on the market. It is only the U.S. approvals for particular cancer indications that have been withdrawn.
In the past, olaratumab (Lartruvo) was withdrawn from the market altogether. The FDA granted accelerated approval of the drug for soft tissue sarcoma, but clinical benefit was not confirmed in a phase 3 trial.
Issue highlighted by Dr. Prasad and Dr. Gyawali
In recent years, much of the attention on accelerated approvals was spurred by the work of a few researchers, particularly Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, associate professor in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from Queen’s University Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Ont. (Both are regular contributors to the oncology section of this news organization.)
Dr. Goldstein made this point in a tweet about the FDA’s announcement of the April ODAC meetings:
“Well done to @oncology_bg and @VPrasadMDMPH among others for highlighting in their papers that the FDA wasn’t properly evaluating accelerated approval drugs.
FDA have listened.
And I thought that the impact of academia was limited!”
Dr. Prasad has made the case for closer scrutiny of accelerated approvals in a number of journal articles and in his 2020 book, “Malignant: How Bad Policy and Bad Evidence Harm People with Cancer,” published by Johns Hopkins University Press.
The book includes highlights of a 2016 article published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings that focused on surrogate endpoints used for FDA approvals. In the article, Dr. Prasad and his coauthor report that they did not find formal analyses of the strength of the surrogate-survival correlation in 14 of 25 cases of accelerated approvals (56%) and in 11 of 30 traditional approvals (37%).
“Our results were concerning. They imply that many surrogates are based on little more than a gut feeling. You might rationalize that and argue a gut feeling is the same as ‘reasonably likely to predict,’ but no reasonable person could think a gut feeling means established,” Dr. Prasad writes in his book. “Our result suggests the FDA is using surrogate endpoints far beyond what may be fair or reasonable.”
Dr. Gyawali has argued that the process by which the FDA assesses cancer drugs for approvals has undergone a profound shift. He has most recently remarked on this in an October 2020 commentary on Medscape.
“Until the recent floodgate of approvals based on response rates from single-arm trials, the majority of cancer therapy decisions were supported by evidence generated from randomized controlled trials (RCTs),” Dr. Gyawali wrote. “The evidence base to support clinical decisions in managing therapeutic side effects has been comparatively sparse.”
Accelerated approval to improve access
The FDA has struggled for about 2 decades with questions of where to set the bar on evidence for promising cancer drugs.
The agency’s accelerated approval program for drugs began in 1992. During the first decade, the focus was largely on medicines related to HIV.
In the early 2000s, oncology drugs began to dominate the program.
Dr. Pazdur has presided over the FDA’s marked changes regarding the use of surrogate markers when weighing whether to allow sales of cancer medicines. Formerly a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Dr. Pazdur joined the FDA as director of the Division of Oncology Drug Products in 1999.
Soon after his appointment, he had to field inquiries from pharmaceutical companies about how much evidence they needed to receive accelerated approvals.
Early on, he publicly expressed impatience about the drugmakers’ approach. “The purpose of accelerated approval was not accelerated drug company profits,” Dr. Padzur said at a 2004 ODAC meeting.
Rather, the point is to allow access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine their actual benefit to patients, he explained.
“It wasn’t a license to do less, less, less, and less to a point now that we may be getting companies that are coming in” intent on determining the minimum evidence the FDA will take, Dr. Pazdur said. “It shouldn’t be what is the lowest. It is what is a sufficient amount to give patients and physicians a real understanding of what their drug will do.”
In a 2016 interview with The New York Times, Dr. Pazdur said that his views on cancer drug approvals have evolved with time. He described himself as being “on a jihad to streamline the review process and get things out the door faster.”
“I have evolved from regulator to regulator-advocate,” Dr. Pazdur told the newspaper.
His attitude reflected his personal experience in losing his wife to ovarian cancer in 2015, as well as shifts in science and law. In 2012, Congress passed a law that gave the FDA new resources to speed medicines for life-threatening diseases to market. In addition, advances in genetics appeared to be making some medications more effective and easier to test, Dr. Pazdur said in The New York Times interview.
Withdrawals seen as sign of success
Since the program’s inception, only 6% of accelerated approvals for oncology indications have been withdrawn, the FDA said.
It would be a sign that the program is working if the April meetings lead to further withdrawals of indications that have been granted accelerated approval, Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, said in an interview with this news organization.
“It shouldn’t be seen as a failure,” Dr. Gralow said.
In her own practice at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, she has seen the value of emerging therapies for patients fighting advanced cancers. During her 25 years of clinical practice in an academic setting, she has gained access to drugs through single-patient investigative new drug applications.
However, this path is not an option for many patients who undergo treatment in facilities other than academic centers, she commented. She noted that the accelerated approval process is a way to expand access to emerging medicines, but she sees a need for caution in the use of drugs that have been given only this conditional approval. She emphasizes that such drugs may be suitable only for certain patients.
“I would say that, for metastatic patients, patients with incurable disease, we are willing to take some risk,” Dr. Gralow said. “We don’t have other options. They can’t wait the years that it would take to get a drug approved.”
One such patient is David Mitchell, who serves as the consumer representative on ODAC. He told this news organization that he is taking three drugs for multiple myeloma that received accelerated approvals: pomalidomide, bortezomib, and daratumumab.
“I want the FDA to have the option to approve drugs in an accelerated pathway, because as a patient taking three drugs granted accelerated approval, I’m benefiting – I’ve lived the benefit,” Mr. Mitchell said, “and I want other patients to have the opportunity to have that benefit.”
He believes that the FDA’s approach regarding accelerated approvals serves to get potentially beneficial medicines to patients who have few options and also fulfills the FDA’s mandate to protect the public from treatments that have little benefit but can cause harm.
Accelerated approval also offers needed flexibility to drugmakers as they develop more specifically targeted drugs for diseases that affect relatively few people, such as multiple myeloma, he said. “As the targeting of your therapies gets tighter and for smaller groups of patients, you have a harder time following the traditional model,” such as conducting large, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that may indicate increased overall survival, he said.
“To me, this is the way the FDA intended it to work,” he added. “It’s going to offer the accelerated approval based on a surrogate endpoint for a safe drug, but it’s going to require the confirmatory trial, and if the confirmatory trial fails, it will pull the drug off the market.”
Some medicines that have received accelerated approvals may ultimately be found not to benefit patients, Mr. Mitchell acknowledged. But people in his situation, whose disease has progressed despite treatments, may want to take that risk, he added.
Four cancer indications recently withdrawn voluntarily by the manufacturer
- December 2020: Nivolumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with progression after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other line of therapy (Bristol Myers Squibb).
- February 2021: Durvalumab for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma whose disease has progressed during or following platinum-based chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant platinum-containing chemotherapy (AstraZeneca).
- March 2021: Pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other prior line of therapy (Merck).
- March 2021: Atezolizumab for treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing atezolizumab chemotherapy or disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy (Genentech).
Six cancer indications under review at the April 2021 ODAC meeting
- Atezolizumab indicated in combination with protein-bound for the treatment of adults with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative whose tumors express PD-L1 (PD-L1 stained tumor-infiltrating immune cells of any intensity covering ≥1% of the tumor area), as determined by an FDA-approved test.
- Atezolizumab indicated for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
- Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
- Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with recurrent locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma whose tumors express PD-L1 (Combined Positive Score ≥1), as determined by an FDA-approved test, with disease progression on or after two or more prior lines of therapy including fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy and if appropriate, HER2/neu-targeted therapy.
- Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with who have been previously treated with .
- Nivolumab indicated as a single agent for the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who have been previously treated with sorafenib.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
U.S. regulators are stepping up scrutiny of therapies that were granted an accelerated approval to treat cancers on the basis of surrogate endpoints but have failed to show clinical or survival benefits upon more extensive testing.
At issue are a number of cancer indications for immunotherapies. Four have already been withdrawn (voluntarily by the manufacturer), and six more will be reviewed at an upcoming meeting.
In recent years, the US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approvals to oncology medicines on the basis of evidence that suggests a benefit for patients. Examples of such evidence relate to response rates and estimates of tumor shrinkage. But these approvals are granted on the condition that the manufacturer conducts larger clinical trials that show clinical benefit, including benefit in overall survival.
Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, has argued that the point of these conditional approvals is to find acceptable surrogate markers to allow people with “desperate illnesses” to have access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine the drug’s actual benefit to patients.
Oncologists are now questioning whether the FDA has become too lenient in its approach, Daniel A. Goldstein, MD, a senior physician in medical oncology and internal medicine at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, told this news organization.
“The main two things you want from a cancer drug is to live longer and live a higher quality of life,” said Goldstein. “But these endpoints that they’ve been using over the past few years are not really giving us confidence that these drugs are actually going to help to live longer or better.”
Dr. Pazdur said the FDA will consider withdrawing its accelerated approvals when results of further studies do not confirm expected benefit for patients.
“This is like the pendulum has swung as far as it was going to swing and now is on the backswing,” said Dr. Goldstein, also of the department of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “You could call this a watershed moment.”
Although there’s near universal interest in allowing people with advanced cancer access to promising medicines, there’s also rising concern about exposing patients needlessly to costly drugs with potentially tough side effects. That may prompt a shift in the standards U.S. regulators apply to cancer medicines, Dr. Goldstein said.
Indications withdrawn and under review
In a meeting scheduled for April 27-29, the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee will review indications granted through the accelerated approval process for three immunotherapies: pembrolizumab (Keytruda), atezolizumab (Tecentriq), and nivolumab (Opdivo).
It is part of an industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals for cancer indications in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit, the FDA noted.
The process has already led to voluntary withdrawals of four cancer indications by the manufacturers, including one indication each for pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and nivolumab, and one for durvalumab (Imfinzi).
All of these immunotherapies are approved for numerous cancer indications, and they all remain on the market. It is only the U.S. approvals for particular cancer indications that have been withdrawn.
In the past, olaratumab (Lartruvo) was withdrawn from the market altogether. The FDA granted accelerated approval of the drug for soft tissue sarcoma, but clinical benefit was not confirmed in a phase 3 trial.
Issue highlighted by Dr. Prasad and Dr. Gyawali
In recent years, much of the attention on accelerated approvals was spurred by the work of a few researchers, particularly Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, associate professor in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from Queen’s University Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Ont. (Both are regular contributors to the oncology section of this news organization.)
Dr. Goldstein made this point in a tweet about the FDA’s announcement of the April ODAC meetings:
“Well done to @oncology_bg and @VPrasadMDMPH among others for highlighting in their papers that the FDA wasn’t properly evaluating accelerated approval drugs.
FDA have listened.
And I thought that the impact of academia was limited!”
Dr. Prasad has made the case for closer scrutiny of accelerated approvals in a number of journal articles and in his 2020 book, “Malignant: How Bad Policy and Bad Evidence Harm People with Cancer,” published by Johns Hopkins University Press.
The book includes highlights of a 2016 article published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings that focused on surrogate endpoints used for FDA approvals. In the article, Dr. Prasad and his coauthor report that they did not find formal analyses of the strength of the surrogate-survival correlation in 14 of 25 cases of accelerated approvals (56%) and in 11 of 30 traditional approvals (37%).
“Our results were concerning. They imply that many surrogates are based on little more than a gut feeling. You might rationalize that and argue a gut feeling is the same as ‘reasonably likely to predict,’ but no reasonable person could think a gut feeling means established,” Dr. Prasad writes in his book. “Our result suggests the FDA is using surrogate endpoints far beyond what may be fair or reasonable.”
Dr. Gyawali has argued that the process by which the FDA assesses cancer drugs for approvals has undergone a profound shift. He has most recently remarked on this in an October 2020 commentary on Medscape.
“Until the recent floodgate of approvals based on response rates from single-arm trials, the majority of cancer therapy decisions were supported by evidence generated from randomized controlled trials (RCTs),” Dr. Gyawali wrote. “The evidence base to support clinical decisions in managing therapeutic side effects has been comparatively sparse.”
Accelerated approval to improve access
The FDA has struggled for about 2 decades with questions of where to set the bar on evidence for promising cancer drugs.
The agency’s accelerated approval program for drugs began in 1992. During the first decade, the focus was largely on medicines related to HIV.
In the early 2000s, oncology drugs began to dominate the program.
Dr. Pazdur has presided over the FDA’s marked changes regarding the use of surrogate markers when weighing whether to allow sales of cancer medicines. Formerly a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Dr. Pazdur joined the FDA as director of the Division of Oncology Drug Products in 1999.
Soon after his appointment, he had to field inquiries from pharmaceutical companies about how much evidence they needed to receive accelerated approvals.
Early on, he publicly expressed impatience about the drugmakers’ approach. “The purpose of accelerated approval was not accelerated drug company profits,” Dr. Padzur said at a 2004 ODAC meeting.
Rather, the point is to allow access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine their actual benefit to patients, he explained.
“It wasn’t a license to do less, less, less, and less to a point now that we may be getting companies that are coming in” intent on determining the minimum evidence the FDA will take, Dr. Pazdur said. “It shouldn’t be what is the lowest. It is what is a sufficient amount to give patients and physicians a real understanding of what their drug will do.”
In a 2016 interview with The New York Times, Dr. Pazdur said that his views on cancer drug approvals have evolved with time. He described himself as being “on a jihad to streamline the review process and get things out the door faster.”
“I have evolved from regulator to regulator-advocate,” Dr. Pazdur told the newspaper.
His attitude reflected his personal experience in losing his wife to ovarian cancer in 2015, as well as shifts in science and law. In 2012, Congress passed a law that gave the FDA new resources to speed medicines for life-threatening diseases to market. In addition, advances in genetics appeared to be making some medications more effective and easier to test, Dr. Pazdur said in The New York Times interview.
Withdrawals seen as sign of success
Since the program’s inception, only 6% of accelerated approvals for oncology indications have been withdrawn, the FDA said.
It would be a sign that the program is working if the April meetings lead to further withdrawals of indications that have been granted accelerated approval, Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, said in an interview with this news organization.
“It shouldn’t be seen as a failure,” Dr. Gralow said.
In her own practice at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, she has seen the value of emerging therapies for patients fighting advanced cancers. During her 25 years of clinical practice in an academic setting, she has gained access to drugs through single-patient investigative new drug applications.
However, this path is not an option for many patients who undergo treatment in facilities other than academic centers, she commented. She noted that the accelerated approval process is a way to expand access to emerging medicines, but she sees a need for caution in the use of drugs that have been given only this conditional approval. She emphasizes that such drugs may be suitable only for certain patients.
“I would say that, for metastatic patients, patients with incurable disease, we are willing to take some risk,” Dr. Gralow said. “We don’t have other options. They can’t wait the years that it would take to get a drug approved.”
One such patient is David Mitchell, who serves as the consumer representative on ODAC. He told this news organization that he is taking three drugs for multiple myeloma that received accelerated approvals: pomalidomide, bortezomib, and daratumumab.
“I want the FDA to have the option to approve drugs in an accelerated pathway, because as a patient taking three drugs granted accelerated approval, I’m benefiting – I’ve lived the benefit,” Mr. Mitchell said, “and I want other patients to have the opportunity to have that benefit.”
He believes that the FDA’s approach regarding accelerated approvals serves to get potentially beneficial medicines to patients who have few options and also fulfills the FDA’s mandate to protect the public from treatments that have little benefit but can cause harm.
Accelerated approval also offers needed flexibility to drugmakers as they develop more specifically targeted drugs for diseases that affect relatively few people, such as multiple myeloma, he said. “As the targeting of your therapies gets tighter and for smaller groups of patients, you have a harder time following the traditional model,” such as conducting large, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that may indicate increased overall survival, he said.
“To me, this is the way the FDA intended it to work,” he added. “It’s going to offer the accelerated approval based on a surrogate endpoint for a safe drug, but it’s going to require the confirmatory trial, and if the confirmatory trial fails, it will pull the drug off the market.”
Some medicines that have received accelerated approvals may ultimately be found not to benefit patients, Mr. Mitchell acknowledged. But people in his situation, whose disease has progressed despite treatments, may want to take that risk, he added.
Four cancer indications recently withdrawn voluntarily by the manufacturer
- December 2020: Nivolumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with progression after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other line of therapy (Bristol Myers Squibb).
- February 2021: Durvalumab for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma whose disease has progressed during or following platinum-based chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant platinum-containing chemotherapy (AstraZeneca).
- March 2021: Pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other prior line of therapy (Merck).
- March 2021: Atezolizumab for treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing atezolizumab chemotherapy or disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy (Genentech).
Six cancer indications under review at the April 2021 ODAC meeting
- Atezolizumab indicated in combination with protein-bound for the treatment of adults with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative whose tumors express PD-L1 (PD-L1 stained tumor-infiltrating immune cells of any intensity covering ≥1% of the tumor area), as determined by an FDA-approved test.
- Atezolizumab indicated for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
- Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
- Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with recurrent locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma whose tumors express PD-L1 (Combined Positive Score ≥1), as determined by an FDA-approved test, with disease progression on or after two or more prior lines of therapy including fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy and if appropriate, HER2/neu-targeted therapy.
- Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with who have been previously treated with .
- Nivolumab indicated as a single agent for the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who have been previously treated with sorafenib.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CDC data strengthen link between obesity and severe COVID
Officials have previously linked being overweight or obese to a greater risk for more severe COVID-19. A report today from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention adds numbers and some nuance to the association.
Data from nearly 150,000 U.S. adults hospitalized with COVID-19 nationwide indicate that risk for more severe disease outcomes increases along with body mass index (BMI). The risk of COVID-19–related hospitalization and death associated with obesity was particularly high among people younger than 65.
“As clinicians develop care plans for COVID-19 patients, they should consider the risk for severe outcomes in patients with higher BMIs, especially for those with severe obesity,” the researchers note. They add that their findings suggest “progressively intensive management of COVID-19 might be needed for patients with more severe obesity.”
People with COVID-19 close to the border between a healthy and overweight BMI – from 23.7 kg/m2 to 25.9 kg/m2 – had the lowest risks for adverse outcomes.
The study was published online today in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
Greater need for critical care
The risk of ICU admission was particularly associated with severe obesity. For example, those with a BMI in the 40-44.9 kg/m2 category had a 6% increased risk, which jumped to 16% higher among those with a BMI of 45 or greater.
Compared to people with a healthy BMI, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation was 12% more likely among overweight adults with a BMI of 25-29.2. The risked jumped to 108% greater among the most obese people, those with a BMI of 45 or greater, lead CDC researcher Lyudmyla Kompaniyets, PhD, and colleagues reported.
Moreover, the risks for hospitalization and death increased in a dose-response relationship with obesity.
For example, risks of being hospitalized were 7% greater for adults with a BMI between 30 and 34.9 and climbed to 33% greater for those with a BMI of 45. Risks were calculated as adjusted relative risks compared with people with a healthy BMI between 18.5 and 24.9.
Interestingly, being underweight was associated with elevated risk for COVID-19 hospitalization as well. For example, people with a BMI of less than 18.5 had a 20% greater chance of admission vs. people in the healthy BMI range. Unknown underlying medical conditions or issues related to nutrition or immune function could be contributing factors, the researchers note.
Elevated risk of dying
The risk of death in adults with obesity ranged from 8% higher in the 30-34.9 range up to 61% greater for those with a BMI of 45.
Chronic inflammation or impaired lung function from excess weight are possible reasons that higher BMI imparts greater risk, the researchers note.
The CDC researchers evaluated 148,494 adults from 238 hospitals participating in PHD-SR database. Because the study was limited to people hospitalized with COVID-19, the findings may not apply to all adults with COVID-19.
Another potential limitation is that investigators were unable to calculate BMI for all patients in the database because about 28% of participating hospitals did not report height and weight.
The study authors had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Officials have previously linked being overweight or obese to a greater risk for more severe COVID-19. A report today from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention adds numbers and some nuance to the association.
Data from nearly 150,000 U.S. adults hospitalized with COVID-19 nationwide indicate that risk for more severe disease outcomes increases along with body mass index (BMI). The risk of COVID-19–related hospitalization and death associated with obesity was particularly high among people younger than 65.
“As clinicians develop care plans for COVID-19 patients, they should consider the risk for severe outcomes in patients with higher BMIs, especially for those with severe obesity,” the researchers note. They add that their findings suggest “progressively intensive management of COVID-19 might be needed for patients with more severe obesity.”
People with COVID-19 close to the border between a healthy and overweight BMI – from 23.7 kg/m2 to 25.9 kg/m2 – had the lowest risks for adverse outcomes.
The study was published online today in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
Greater need for critical care
The risk of ICU admission was particularly associated with severe obesity. For example, those with a BMI in the 40-44.9 kg/m2 category had a 6% increased risk, which jumped to 16% higher among those with a BMI of 45 or greater.
Compared to people with a healthy BMI, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation was 12% more likely among overweight adults with a BMI of 25-29.2. The risked jumped to 108% greater among the most obese people, those with a BMI of 45 or greater, lead CDC researcher Lyudmyla Kompaniyets, PhD, and colleagues reported.
Moreover, the risks for hospitalization and death increased in a dose-response relationship with obesity.
For example, risks of being hospitalized were 7% greater for adults with a BMI between 30 and 34.9 and climbed to 33% greater for those with a BMI of 45. Risks were calculated as adjusted relative risks compared with people with a healthy BMI between 18.5 and 24.9.
Interestingly, being underweight was associated with elevated risk for COVID-19 hospitalization as well. For example, people with a BMI of less than 18.5 had a 20% greater chance of admission vs. people in the healthy BMI range. Unknown underlying medical conditions or issues related to nutrition or immune function could be contributing factors, the researchers note.
Elevated risk of dying
The risk of death in adults with obesity ranged from 8% higher in the 30-34.9 range up to 61% greater for those with a BMI of 45.
Chronic inflammation or impaired lung function from excess weight are possible reasons that higher BMI imparts greater risk, the researchers note.
The CDC researchers evaluated 148,494 adults from 238 hospitals participating in PHD-SR database. Because the study was limited to people hospitalized with COVID-19, the findings may not apply to all adults with COVID-19.
Another potential limitation is that investigators were unable to calculate BMI for all patients in the database because about 28% of participating hospitals did not report height and weight.
The study authors had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Officials have previously linked being overweight or obese to a greater risk for more severe COVID-19. A report today from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention adds numbers and some nuance to the association.
Data from nearly 150,000 U.S. adults hospitalized with COVID-19 nationwide indicate that risk for more severe disease outcomes increases along with body mass index (BMI). The risk of COVID-19–related hospitalization and death associated with obesity was particularly high among people younger than 65.
“As clinicians develop care plans for COVID-19 patients, they should consider the risk for severe outcomes in patients with higher BMIs, especially for those with severe obesity,” the researchers note. They add that their findings suggest “progressively intensive management of COVID-19 might be needed for patients with more severe obesity.”
People with COVID-19 close to the border between a healthy and overweight BMI – from 23.7 kg/m2 to 25.9 kg/m2 – had the lowest risks for adverse outcomes.
The study was published online today in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
Greater need for critical care
The risk of ICU admission was particularly associated with severe obesity. For example, those with a BMI in the 40-44.9 kg/m2 category had a 6% increased risk, which jumped to 16% higher among those with a BMI of 45 or greater.
Compared to people with a healthy BMI, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation was 12% more likely among overweight adults with a BMI of 25-29.2. The risked jumped to 108% greater among the most obese people, those with a BMI of 45 or greater, lead CDC researcher Lyudmyla Kompaniyets, PhD, and colleagues reported.
Moreover, the risks for hospitalization and death increased in a dose-response relationship with obesity.
For example, risks of being hospitalized were 7% greater for adults with a BMI between 30 and 34.9 and climbed to 33% greater for those with a BMI of 45. Risks were calculated as adjusted relative risks compared with people with a healthy BMI between 18.5 and 24.9.
Interestingly, being underweight was associated with elevated risk for COVID-19 hospitalization as well. For example, people with a BMI of less than 18.5 had a 20% greater chance of admission vs. people in the healthy BMI range. Unknown underlying medical conditions or issues related to nutrition or immune function could be contributing factors, the researchers note.
Elevated risk of dying
The risk of death in adults with obesity ranged from 8% higher in the 30-34.9 range up to 61% greater for those with a BMI of 45.
Chronic inflammation or impaired lung function from excess weight are possible reasons that higher BMI imparts greater risk, the researchers note.
The CDC researchers evaluated 148,494 adults from 238 hospitals participating in PHD-SR database. Because the study was limited to people hospitalized with COVID-19, the findings may not apply to all adults with COVID-19.
Another potential limitation is that investigators were unable to calculate BMI for all patients in the database because about 28% of participating hospitals did not report height and weight.
The study authors had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA authorizes first molecular at-home, OTC COVID-19 test
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Cue COVID-19 Test for Home and Over The Counter Use (Cue OTC Test, Cue Health).
The Cue OTC Test is the first molecular diagnostic test available to consumers without a prescription.
The test detects genetic material from SARS-CoV-2 present in the nostrils and delivers results in about 20 minutes to the user’s mobile smart device via the Cue Health app.
In testing, the Cue OTC Test correctly identified 96% of positive nasal swab samples from individuals known to have symptoms and correctly identified 100% of positive samples from individuals without symptoms.
The test is intended for use in people aged 2 years and older with and without symptoms.
“With this authorization, consumers can purchase and self-administer one of the easiest, fastest, and most accurate tests without a prescription,” Clint Sever, cofounder and chief product officer of Cue Health, said in a news release.
“This FDA authorization will help us improve patient outcomes with a solution that provides the accuracy of central lab tests, with the speed and accessibility required to address emergent global health issues,” he said.
Cue Health expects to produce more than 100,000 single-use test kits per day by this summer. Dena Cook, the company’s chief communications officer, told this news organization that the company hasn’t announced pricing information yet, but the price will be “comparable” to other price points and other products on the market.
“The FDA continues to prioritize the availability of more at-home testing options in response to the pandemic,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a statement.
“Cue COVID-19 Test for Home and Over-the-Counter Use provides access to accurate and reliable testing at home, without a prescription. The FDA will continue to work collaboratively with test developers to advance effective testing options for doctors, clinicians, and the public,” he said.
In June, the FDA granted an EUA to Cue Health’s COVID-19 test for use in clinical and point-of-care settings.
The test is currently being used in hospitals, physicians’ offices, and dental clinics, as well as schools, essential businesses, nursing homes, and other congregate-care facilities. The test is also being distributed through a program led by the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services across several states.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Cue COVID-19 Test for Home and Over The Counter Use (Cue OTC Test, Cue Health).
The Cue OTC Test is the first molecular diagnostic test available to consumers without a prescription.
The test detects genetic material from SARS-CoV-2 present in the nostrils and delivers results in about 20 minutes to the user’s mobile smart device via the Cue Health app.
In testing, the Cue OTC Test correctly identified 96% of positive nasal swab samples from individuals known to have symptoms and correctly identified 100% of positive samples from individuals without symptoms.
The test is intended for use in people aged 2 years and older with and without symptoms.
“With this authorization, consumers can purchase and self-administer one of the easiest, fastest, and most accurate tests without a prescription,” Clint Sever, cofounder and chief product officer of Cue Health, said in a news release.
“This FDA authorization will help us improve patient outcomes with a solution that provides the accuracy of central lab tests, with the speed and accessibility required to address emergent global health issues,” he said.
Cue Health expects to produce more than 100,000 single-use test kits per day by this summer. Dena Cook, the company’s chief communications officer, told this news organization that the company hasn’t announced pricing information yet, but the price will be “comparable” to other price points and other products on the market.
“The FDA continues to prioritize the availability of more at-home testing options in response to the pandemic,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a statement.
“Cue COVID-19 Test for Home and Over-the-Counter Use provides access to accurate and reliable testing at home, without a prescription. The FDA will continue to work collaboratively with test developers to advance effective testing options for doctors, clinicians, and the public,” he said.
In June, the FDA granted an EUA to Cue Health’s COVID-19 test for use in clinical and point-of-care settings.
The test is currently being used in hospitals, physicians’ offices, and dental clinics, as well as schools, essential businesses, nursing homes, and other congregate-care facilities. The test is also being distributed through a program led by the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services across several states.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Cue COVID-19 Test for Home and Over The Counter Use (Cue OTC Test, Cue Health).
The Cue OTC Test is the first molecular diagnostic test available to consumers without a prescription.
The test detects genetic material from SARS-CoV-2 present in the nostrils and delivers results in about 20 minutes to the user’s mobile smart device via the Cue Health app.
In testing, the Cue OTC Test correctly identified 96% of positive nasal swab samples from individuals known to have symptoms and correctly identified 100% of positive samples from individuals without symptoms.
The test is intended for use in people aged 2 years and older with and without symptoms.
“With this authorization, consumers can purchase and self-administer one of the easiest, fastest, and most accurate tests without a prescription,” Clint Sever, cofounder and chief product officer of Cue Health, said in a news release.
“This FDA authorization will help us improve patient outcomes with a solution that provides the accuracy of central lab tests, with the speed and accessibility required to address emergent global health issues,” he said.
Cue Health expects to produce more than 100,000 single-use test kits per day by this summer. Dena Cook, the company’s chief communications officer, told this news organization that the company hasn’t announced pricing information yet, but the price will be “comparable” to other price points and other products on the market.
“The FDA continues to prioritize the availability of more at-home testing options in response to the pandemic,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a statement.
“Cue COVID-19 Test for Home and Over-the-Counter Use provides access to accurate and reliable testing at home, without a prescription. The FDA will continue to work collaboratively with test developers to advance effective testing options for doctors, clinicians, and the public,” he said.
In June, the FDA granted an EUA to Cue Health’s COVID-19 test for use in clinical and point-of-care settings.
The test is currently being used in hospitals, physicians’ offices, and dental clinics, as well as schools, essential businesses, nursing homes, and other congregate-care facilities. The test is also being distributed through a program led by the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services across several states.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Tocilizumab (Actemra) scores FDA approval for systemic sclerosis–associated interstitial lung disease
The Food and Drug Administration has approved subcutaneously-injected tocilizumab (Actemra) to reduce the rate of pulmonary function decline in systemic sclerosis–associated interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD) patients, according to a press release from manufacturer Genentech.
Tocilizumab is the first biologic to be approved by the agency for adults with SSc-ILD, a rare and potentially life-threatening condition that may affect up to 80% of SSc patients and lead to lung inflammation and scarring.
The approval was based primarily on data from a phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (the focuSSced trial) that included 212 adults with SSc. Although that study failed to meet its primary endpoint of change from baseline to 48 weeks in the modified Rodnan Skin Score, the researchers observed a significantly reduced lung function decline as measured by forced vital capacity (FVC) and percent predicted forced vital capacity (ppFVC) among tocilizumab-treated patients, compared with those who received placebo. A total of 68 patients (65%) in the tocilizumab group and 68 patients (64%) in the placebo group had SSc-ILD at baseline.
In a subgroup analysis, patients taking tocilizumab had a smaller decline in mean ppFVC, compared with placebo patients (0.07% vs. –6.4%; mean difference, 6.47%), and a smaller decline in FVC (mean change –14 mL vs. –255 mL with placebo; mean difference, 241 mL).
The mean change from baseline to week 48 in modified Rodnan Skin Score was –5.88 for patients on tocilizumab and –3.77 with placebo.
Safety data were similar between tocilizumab and placebo groups through 48 weeks, and similar for patients with and without SSc-ILD. In general, tocilizumab side effects include increased susceptibility to infections, and serious side effects may include stomach tears, hepatotoxicity, and increased risk of cancer and hepatitis B, according to the prescribing information. However, the most common side effects are upper respiratory tract infections, headache, hypertension, and injection-site reactions.
Tocilizumab, an interleukin-6 receptor antagonist, is already approved for the treatment of adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis, as well as for adult patients with giant cell arteritis; patients aged 2 years and older with active polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis or active systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis; and adults and pediatric patients 2 years of age and older with chimeric antigen receptor T-cell–induced severe or life-threatening cytokine release syndrome.
Prescribing information is available here.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved subcutaneously-injected tocilizumab (Actemra) to reduce the rate of pulmonary function decline in systemic sclerosis–associated interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD) patients, according to a press release from manufacturer Genentech.
Tocilizumab is the first biologic to be approved by the agency for adults with SSc-ILD, a rare and potentially life-threatening condition that may affect up to 80% of SSc patients and lead to lung inflammation and scarring.
The approval was based primarily on data from a phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (the focuSSced trial) that included 212 adults with SSc. Although that study failed to meet its primary endpoint of change from baseline to 48 weeks in the modified Rodnan Skin Score, the researchers observed a significantly reduced lung function decline as measured by forced vital capacity (FVC) and percent predicted forced vital capacity (ppFVC) among tocilizumab-treated patients, compared with those who received placebo. A total of 68 patients (65%) in the tocilizumab group and 68 patients (64%) in the placebo group had SSc-ILD at baseline.
In a subgroup analysis, patients taking tocilizumab had a smaller decline in mean ppFVC, compared with placebo patients (0.07% vs. –6.4%; mean difference, 6.47%), and a smaller decline in FVC (mean change –14 mL vs. –255 mL with placebo; mean difference, 241 mL).
The mean change from baseline to week 48 in modified Rodnan Skin Score was –5.88 for patients on tocilizumab and –3.77 with placebo.
Safety data were similar between tocilizumab and placebo groups through 48 weeks, and similar for patients with and without SSc-ILD. In general, tocilizumab side effects include increased susceptibility to infections, and serious side effects may include stomach tears, hepatotoxicity, and increased risk of cancer and hepatitis B, according to the prescribing information. However, the most common side effects are upper respiratory tract infections, headache, hypertension, and injection-site reactions.
Tocilizumab, an interleukin-6 receptor antagonist, is already approved for the treatment of adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis, as well as for adult patients with giant cell arteritis; patients aged 2 years and older with active polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis or active systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis; and adults and pediatric patients 2 years of age and older with chimeric antigen receptor T-cell–induced severe or life-threatening cytokine release syndrome.
Prescribing information is available here.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved subcutaneously-injected tocilizumab (Actemra) to reduce the rate of pulmonary function decline in systemic sclerosis–associated interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD) patients, according to a press release from manufacturer Genentech.
Tocilizumab is the first biologic to be approved by the agency for adults with SSc-ILD, a rare and potentially life-threatening condition that may affect up to 80% of SSc patients and lead to lung inflammation and scarring.
The approval was based primarily on data from a phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (the focuSSced trial) that included 212 adults with SSc. Although that study failed to meet its primary endpoint of change from baseline to 48 weeks in the modified Rodnan Skin Score, the researchers observed a significantly reduced lung function decline as measured by forced vital capacity (FVC) and percent predicted forced vital capacity (ppFVC) among tocilizumab-treated patients, compared with those who received placebo. A total of 68 patients (65%) in the tocilizumab group and 68 patients (64%) in the placebo group had SSc-ILD at baseline.
In a subgroup analysis, patients taking tocilizumab had a smaller decline in mean ppFVC, compared with placebo patients (0.07% vs. –6.4%; mean difference, 6.47%), and a smaller decline in FVC (mean change –14 mL vs. –255 mL with placebo; mean difference, 241 mL).
The mean change from baseline to week 48 in modified Rodnan Skin Score was –5.88 for patients on tocilizumab and –3.77 with placebo.
Safety data were similar between tocilizumab and placebo groups through 48 weeks, and similar for patients with and without SSc-ILD. In general, tocilizumab side effects include increased susceptibility to infections, and serious side effects may include stomach tears, hepatotoxicity, and increased risk of cancer and hepatitis B, according to the prescribing information. However, the most common side effects are upper respiratory tract infections, headache, hypertension, and injection-site reactions.
Tocilizumab, an interleukin-6 receptor antagonist, is already approved for the treatment of adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis, as well as for adult patients with giant cell arteritis; patients aged 2 years and older with active polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis or active systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis; and adults and pediatric patients 2 years of age and older with chimeric antigen receptor T-cell–induced severe or life-threatening cytokine release syndrome.
Prescribing information is available here.